Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited
before any court except for the purpose Apr 22 2014, 9:08 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DARREN BEDWELL GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
KARL M. SCHARNBERG
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
COREY BATES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-1309-CR-435
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kurt Eisgruber, Judge
Cause No. 49G01-1211-FC-79373
April 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Corey Bates appeals his conviction for Class C felony forgery. We affirm.
Issue
Bates raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred by denying
his proposed jury instruction regarding mistake of fact.
Facts
On November 15, 2012, Jacob Humphrey was working as a bank teller at the
Stock Yards Bank in Carmel when Bates attempted to cash a check made out to himself
in the amount of $2,398.03 from Brittany Construction, Inc. Humphrey asked Bates for
two forms of identification, which Bates provided. Humphrey noticed that the check
“looked a little bit off” and decided to call the issuer of the check. Tr. p. 32. When
Humphrey picked up the phone, Bates asked what he was doing. Humphrey informed
Bates that he was calling Brittany Construction, and Bates said that he “would just take
the check and cash it elsewhere.” Id. Bates took his identifications and the check and
walked away from the bank. Humphrey called his supervisor, Suzanne Bearden, at the
bank’s Binford Avenue location to inform her of the situation.
At 2:15 p.m., Bates entered the Binford Avenue Branch of Stock Yards Bank and
attempted to cash the check. Bearden noticed that the account did not match other
Brittany Construction checks and that the account number was incorrect. Bearden made
a copy of Bates’ identification and informed Bates that she would not be able to cash the
check because it was fraudulent. Bates then took his identification and left the bank.
2
The State charged Bates with Class C felony forgery and being an habitual
offender. At his jury trial, Bates proposed the following jury instruction:
It is an issue whether the Defendant mistakenly committed
the acts charged.
It is a defense that the Defendant was reasonably mistaken
about a matter of fact if the mistake prevented the Defendant
from committing the act charged with specific intent to
defraud.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Defendant was not reasonably mistaken.
App. p. 84. Bates did not testify. The trial court found no evidence to support giving the
instruction and rejected it. The jury found Bates guilty as charged. Bates now appeals.
Analysis
Bates argues that the trial court erred by denying his proposed jury instruction on
mistake of fact. Instructing a jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we
review its decision only for an abuse of discretion. Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342,
345 (Ind. 2013). We undertake a three-part analysis in determining whether a trial court
has abused its discretion. Id. First, we determine whether the tendered instruction is a
correct statement of the law. Id. Second, we examine the record to determine whether
there was evidence to support the tendered instruction. Id. at 345-46. Finally, we
determine whether the substance of the tendered instruction was covered by another
instruction or instructions. Id. at 346.
Neither Bates nor the State make any argument regarding whether the tendered
instruction is a correct statement of the law or whether the substance of the instruction
3
was covered by another instruction. Bates argues only that the trial court erred by
determining that no evidence supported giving the instruction.
Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-7 provides: “It is a defense that the person who
engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the
mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.” When the State
has made a prima facie case of guilt, the burden is on the defendant to establish an
evidentiary predicate of his mistaken belief of fact. Chavers v. State, 991 N.E.2d 148,
151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “Upon invoking mistake of fact as a defense, the
burden shifts to the defendant to satisfy three elements: ‘(1) that the mistake be honest
and reasonable; (2) that the mistake be about a matter of fact; and (3) that the mistake
negate the culpability required to commit the crime.’” Id. (quoting Potter v. State, 684
N.E.2d 1127, 1135 (Ind. 1997)). “In reviewing whether the evidence was such as to
require a mistake of fact instruction, we consider whether the evidence relevant to that
defense could, if believed by the jury, have created a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind
that the accused had acted with the requisite mental state.” Lechner v. State, 715 N.E.2d
1285, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
Here, the jury was presented with evidence that Bates attempted to cash the check
twice on the same day. On the first occasion, the teller noticed something wrong with the
check and told Bates that he was going to call the issuer of the check. Immediately,
Bates took his identifications and the check and said that he would cash it elsewhere.
Bates then took the check to another branch of the same bank, and another teller also
noticed that the check was fraudulent. The teller took the check, and Bates immediately
4
took his identification and left the bank. The owner of Brittany Construction testified
that he did not know Bates and that Bates had never been an employee or subcontractor
of his company. In support of his argument, Bates points out that the check looked
legitimate and that he identified himself at the banks. However, the mistake of fact must
be “honest and reasonable.” Chavers, 991 N.E.2d at 151. Given Bates’s behavior at the
banks and the fact that Bates had no relationship with Brittany Construction, there was no
evidence presented of an honest and reasonable mistake. The trial court did not err by
denying Bates’s tendered jury instruction on mistake of fact.
Conclusion
The trial court did not err by denying Bates’ tendered jury instruction. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
5